Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9887 (GAU)

PRASANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA v. M/S. SUNDARAM CONSTRUCTIONS

I.A.(Civil)/1108/2025 · 2025-05-27

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010065492025 2025:GAU-AS:6859 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1108/2025 PRASANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA S/O. LT. PUSPADHAR BHATTACHARYYA, R/O. HORO GAURI COMPLEX, TARAJAN, JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001. 2: TULSI NATH BHATTACHARYYA S/O. LT. PUSPADHAR BHATTACHARYYA R/O. HORO GAURI COMPLEX TARAJAN JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 VERSUS M/S. SUNDARAM CONSTRUCTIONS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS, REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS TARANJAN SAMSHAN PATH, P/O. JORHAT. OFFICE ALSO AT SUNDARAM CONSTRUCTION OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, BLOC A, HORO GAURI COMPLEX, TARAJAN, JORHAT, PIN-785001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM, MR C GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR P BARUAH, MR. P DAS Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 28-05-2025 Heard Mr. C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the connected appeal. The ground for delay in preferring the connected appeal has been explained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 of the application. Upon receipt of the notice, Mr. P. Baruah and Mr. P. Das, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent by filing vakalatnama, however, despite of their names being reflected in the cause list, no one represents the respondent. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on consideration of the averment made in paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 of the application, seeking condonation of delay, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, the respondent despite receipt of notice is not appearing it indicates that they have no objection to the condonation of delay. In view of the above, the delay of 35 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. With the above, this IA stands disposed of. Page No.# 3/3 The Registry shall register the connected appeal and list it for admission by reflecting the names of Mr. P. Baruah and Mr. P. Das, as the learned counsel for the respondent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant